Sunday, January 30, 2011

Friday, January 28, 2011

Officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) say every year, they bust hundreds of schools that served as fronts for illegal immigration operations, leaving thousands of foreign nationals who've paid tuition in exchange for a student visa in the lurch, while the head of the "school" often winds up forfeiting property, or, behind bars.

The latest example appears to come from the San Francisco Bay Area: Tri-Valley University based in Pleasanton. Federal prosecutors say it wasn't a school at all- rather an elaborate scheme to defraud the government, and perhaps the biggest scam of its kind.

Open since 2008, TVU's website touts on-line classes in engineering, medicine, and law, and a faculty list of more than 50 highly educated professionals. But those we contacted said they'd never seen the school, or taught a class. Many had no idea their names were on the site, which is peppered with numerous spelling and grammatical mistakes ("Now you graduate, we would like to hear from you, about life and how the study at TVU and the degree do to your career, not just your million dollar donation!").

ICE officials noticed enrollment nearly tripled in a matter of months to over 1,500 students- almost all from the same region of India, and each paying $5,400 per semester to the schools founder, Susan Su.

Court documents say "since its inception, Tri-Valley University has been a "sham" university which Su, and others, have used to facilitate foreign nationals in illegally acquiring student immigration status that authorizes them to remain in the United States."

In a raid last week, ICE agents seized computers and other evidence from four properties allegedly bought with millions in tuition money, including the school's main office building, a converted condo, and a luxury home owned by Su.

She says the school is for real, and denies any wrongdoing. "Make millions dollars-- that is true," she says in her broken English. "You talk about our income, but we do not do cheating, we suppose to be right. This is the standard we charge, with so many students, we never forced anybody to sign up with us."

But in a government sting operation, Su was caught giving F-1 student visas to undercover agents posing as foreign nationals, who told her they wanted to come to the U.S, but had no intention of attending classes.

According to the court filings, the university listed the same address - a single apartment in the Silicon Valley city of Sunnyvale - for nearly all the students. The fact that none were actually living there was a clear attempt, officials say, to conceal the fact that few, if any TVU students lived in California at all. It's believed most were working in other states, and are now scrambling to either transfer to another school, or get a valid visa to stay here. It's likely that many-possibly up to a thousand- Indian nationals will be deported.

As for Susan Su, the government just wants to seize her property for now. But criminal charges, including immigration fraud and money laundering, could be next.

This is a scorching criticism of obama and his administration. I only hope the author of this article understands that the majority of the American people are even more sick of the weakness this administration displays than the rest of the world. The United States should always maintain a position of strength and support for our allies, which is impossible while bowing to every tyrant and dictator on the planet.

In the past, before obama, our Country has always been supportive of those fighting for their freedom. The administration may be a bunch of wimps, but the Citizens of the United States aren't...

Events in the Middle East are moving too fast for the Obama administration to think it can get away with Plan A and Plan B reaction strategies according to the regimes or leaders it wants to keep in and out of power.

Consider the response of the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, to Hezbollah tightening its grip on power in Lebanon this week - Washington might have to pull its funding worth hundreds of millions for Lebanon, her office warned.

Advertisement: Story continues below But as democracy demonstrators were confronted by thousands of baton-wielding policemen in the streets in Cairo, there was no mention of pulling the $US2 billion-plus cheque that Washington writes for the octogenarian President, Hosni Mubarak, each year.

Instead, a rhetorical nugget that Mubarak's mouthpieces would use in their defence - ''our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable'' and then some namby-pamby words about how Mubarak was ''looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people''.

That response came on Wednesday - more thugs in and out of uniform in the streets, more tear-gas and 860 more young Egyptians banged up in prison because, Oliver-like, they had the audacity to stand in the streets and to ask for more. Such is stability.

Undaunted, Clinton tried again on Wednesday, when she called on the Egyptian authorities to cease blocking the communications on which the demonstrators relied. But on Thursday the Twitter and Facebook websites were inaccessible and mobile-phone users in Cairo said that it was difficult or impossible to sent text messages.

Clinton uttered the ''stability'' line early in the week - before the seriousness of what is unfolding in the streets of Cairo and Alexandria came in to focus. Consider how it might be interpreted by ordinary Egyptians - the human rights of 80 million people have been trampled for 30 years but what the US Secretary of State is most concerned about is the stability of the state.

And, even as the focus sharpened, the administration refused to tell the truth about the despot upon whom Washington relies - ''Egypt is a strong ally,'' the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, replied when asked if the administration still supported Mubarak.

And, in a week in which the Middle East's historic self-started wave of democracy protests came to a head, Barack Obama might have used his State of the Union address to cheer along all the protesters; and perhaps to warn all the leaders, country by country, of the fate that awaits them.

Instead he confined his specific remarks to Tunisia, saying: ''The United States of America stands with the people of Tunisia and supports the democratic aspirations of all people.'' So, in a region of 333 million people, where to varying degrees a good 325 million are under the heel of unelected leaders, the US President addressed only little Tunisia.

The lame excuse offered to reporters was that Cairo erupted late in the drafting process of the speech but that last ''aspirations of all people'' phrase was a recognition that ''what happens in Tunisia resonates around the world''.

By current American thinking it would never do to have Islamists in power in the Palestinian Occupied Territories or in Lebanon and therefore they heed every despot's warning that the Islamists are waiting in the wings across North Africa and the Middle East.

But lost in the lunge to protect US strategic and commercial interests by propping up the region's dictator class is any realisation that that support is what leaves the youth of the region under-educated and under-employed and, thereby, ripe for the picking by Islamist and other underground movements.

In Tunisia the revolutionaries are still searching for a leader who can articulate their demands. And this week a leader flew in to Cairo - searching for a revolution. That was the former International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei, whose return to Egypt underscores a challenge brought on across the region as much by the local community as the international community - the grooming of those who might form a half-decent opposition.

Tracing an arc through Obama's approach to the Middle East, the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies professor Fouad Ajami described the President's foreign policy pragmatism as ''a break of faith with democracy''.

Alluding to the suppression of demonstrations in Tehran after the contested 2009 presidential election, he wrote in Lebanon's Daily Star: ''American diplomacy was not likely to alter the raw balance of power between the regime and its democratic oppositionists. But the timidity of American power and the refusal of the Obama administration to embrace the cause of the opposition must be reckoned one of American foreign policy's great moral embarrassments.''

The Mubarak machine's contempt for popular aspirations and whatever the US might think of them was on full display yesterday when Safwat el-Sherif, the head of the ruling National Democratic Party, feigned obliviousness to the reality of political power in Egypt as he lectured the protesters - ''democracy has its rules and process - the minority does not force its will on the majority''.

Abdel Moneim Said, a stooge government-appointed publisher, echoed Hillary Clinton's midweek ''stability'' comment when he told reporters: ''I can't think of anybody that I know that has any concern about the stability of the regime.''

Finding the right policy mix to influence events without being accused of interfering is a fine balance that some observers have concluded eludes the Obama administration.

''It's about identifying the US too closely with these changes and thereby undermining them; and not finding ways to nurture them enough,'' Aaron David Miller, of the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, told The New York Times.

Meanwhile, observers on the ground in the region shake their heads. ''People want moral support,'' said Shadi Hamid, of the Brookings Doha Centre. ''They want to hear words of encouragement - right now they don't have that. They feel the world doesn't care and is working against them.''

His point seems to be this: it is time Washington thought in terms of investing in people in the region, not in dictators.

Read this, it's good stuff. T.L. Davis makes some very good points, as usual. We have the right to disagree with our government. We have a right to protest.

Our Founding Fathers risked everything to free us from our oppressors. In the eyes of their government, they were criminals. But they saw the promise that this Country offered. They fought, against all odds, to attain that promise. They laid out a roadmap for this Country. Somewhere along that map we veered from the true path. We were led astray by our own inattention. We have allowed our Country to be steered by fringe groups that have their own interests at heart, and care nothing for the good of our Nation.

It is past time for us to use our rights to protest, to take a stand, to take our Country back from the thieves. If we wait much longer, we won't have a Country to take back...

There is one irrefutable fact: I was born in America and I was born with rights given to me by God and recognized by the Constitution of the United States of America. There is no question as to the veracity of that statement, but to atheists they might consider that their rights come from nature. Each is free to believe what they will as long as they recognize that rights are not privileges, conditional luxuries or rewards for good behavior. Also, however, rights are not self-enforcing; they are the product of vigilant defense.

What does that mean? It means that every time they pass a restricting gun law or speech law and you do nothing about it, you verify the legitimacy of it. We see in Tunisia and Egypt the result of injustice, but not here in America. I know, you are but one person against a whole government, what can you do? If there were a protest, you would join. If there were a riot, you would engage. Hmmmm.

Here is the doctrine of 1x1x1. You are an individual, you are 1. You can do 1 act as a means of rebellion against that law. You can produce 1 outcome from your act.

This is minor. This is the start. This is the very least you could do. It is anonymous, perhaps even spontaneous, but better if well planned for effect. Look around your AO, what is vulnerable, what is a message that can be sent as protest? If you demand to act as an individual, then for God's sake, act! Here is your chance, embrace the doctrine of 1x1x1.

There are those of us who are willing to stick our necks out, to break laws if necessary, it is an American tradition. Sitting at the "white" counter was breaking the municipal codes, it was breaking the law. Any law, in contravention of the Constitution, is no law and since the government will not enforce the Constitution, it is itself illegal. There is not one representative, or senator alive who has sworn to uphold the Constitution who is not right now in violation of the law. To obey a law handed down by an illegal government to restrict the liberties issued by God is no sin and it is not illegal. But, even if it were, you have that right as an American as a form of protest. Throwing tea into Boston Harbor was an illegal act committed by criminals against a legal authority, yet it inspired those jealous of their rights to act. Today, that act is revered for its inspiration to form a new government, one that now has forgotten the lessons of those times.

What is the price of our inaction? $14 trillion of debt and counting. The futures of our children. Lost liberty (a value incalculable through the avenue of price). The violations of our sovereignty, our borders, our security and our rights. That ain't much, why all those things are trivial to the comfort of yourself as a "law-abiding" citizen. The trains were full of "law-abiding" citizens and the streets ran with the blood of the righteous. What else would an illegal government bent on the subjugation of its people do?

I belong to no group, I am my own man. I don't care if the president is black (or half black), white, brown, yellow or even purple. What I do care about is his ability to do the job, the job as it is described in the Constitution of the United States of America.

I am more qualified to be president than obama. I have run a business, met a payroll, hired and fired. I have worked hard all my life to care for the ones I love. No one has ever given me anything. Everything I have I earned. I care more about this Nation and the ideal of this Nation than life itself. Yet, I would never presume to be presidential.

The reasons I rail against obama and his corrupt administration have NOTHING to do with the color of his skin. He is not only unqualified, his beliefs do not mesh with those that the Founding Fathers of this great Country risked everything for. obama believes that we should all be cared for by the government wether we want it or not. A cradle to grave entitlement society kills the American spirit. Taking from those who have worked hard all their lives to care for people to lazy to care for themselves goes against everything most people in this Country stand for.

obama wishes us to become another third world nation. A few wealthy people at the top, millions and millions of poor people at the bottom, and nothing in the middle. And all those millions depending on the government for their every need.

jim moran is attempting to stir up a controversy. He has nothing to base this claim on, he has no evidence to back it up. If he truly wants to view racism, he needs to look no farther than obama and eric holder. The two of them have succeeded in setting race relations back 30 years. There are probably those who have seen the racism exhibited by holder and obama and are angered by it, but I would guess many of them don't vote.

The election in November was a direct reflection of the policies obama has forced on us in the two years he has been in office. No matter how loud we spoke, he and nancy pelosi and harry reid refused to hear us. They pursued their radical agenda to their own peril. We spoke in a different way in November, we voted out many of the people who betrayed our trust. In 2012 we will vote out more of them. We will keep voting them out until those we elect hear what we are saying.

We don't want to be a socialist nation. We don't want to have the government intrude into every part of our lives. We want to go to work, enjoy our families, live our lives and be free...

Virginia Democratic Rep. Jim Moran is blaming his party's losses last November in large part on voters who "don't want to be governed by an African-American."

The comments were made following President Obama's State of the Union speech Tuesday during an interview with Arab network Alhurra. Asked about the results of the midterm elections, the Virginia congressman compared the political environment to that which preceded the Civil War and suggested race was a determining factor.

"It happened ... for the same reason the Civil War happened in the United States," Moran said. "Southern states, particularly the slaveholding states, didn't want to see a president who was opposed to slavery.

"In this case a lot of people in this country, it's my belief, don't want to be governed by an African-American, particularly one who is inclusive, who is liberal, who wants to spend money on everyone and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society. And that's a basic philosophical clash," Moran said.

Moran attributed his party's opposition to an "uneasiness" with President Obama, saying the criticism comes from a "selfish and close-minded perspective."

Reached for comment, Moran's office stood by the remarks.

"With nearly 1,000 identified hate groups in the U.S. and recent studies showing a majority of Americans believe racism is still widespread against African-Americans, it is no secret that our country has and continues to struggle with racial equality," spokeswoman Anne Hughes said in an e-mail. "The congressman was expressing his frustration with this problem and the role it played in the last election. Rather than ignore this issue or pretend it isn't there, the congressman believes we are better off discussing it in order to overcome it."

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Uh oh, this could get ugly. Maybe it's a waste of time for obama to begin campaigning and raising money. But then, maybe he has people figuring a way around this obstacle too. He seems to have a knack for disregarding the rules and getting away with it. I have a feeling though, that one day soon, his world will come crashing down around him. He will be caught in the web of lies he has woven with no escape...

Arizona may have the most advanced plan, but 10 of the United States – controlling 107 Electoral College votes – are now considering some type of legislation that would plug the hole in federal election procedures that in 2008 allowed Barack Obama to be nominated, elected and inaugurated without providing proof of his qualifications under the U.S. Constitution.

And they aren't all the simple legislation such as that adopted in New Hampshire a year ago that requires an affidavit from a candidate stating that the qualifications – age, residency and being a "natural born citizen" – have been met.

In Georgia, for example, HB37 by Rep. Bobby Franklin not only demands original birth-certificate documentation, it provides a procedure for and declares that citizens have "standing" to challenge the documentation.

Franklin told WND the least that leaders of the United States, on a state or federal level, can do is to follow the requirements of the law of the land.

His plan, he said, is needed because he saw "requirements in the Constitution that you don't have a code provision to ensure that it happens."

"If we as an entity of civil government don't follow the laws, then what makes us think that our citizens are going to obey anything we enact?" he said. "We need to lead by example."

According to officials with the National Conference of State Legislatures, 10 states already have some sort of eligibility-proof requirement plan.

The NCLS said New Hampshire last year adopted HB1245, but it requires only a statement under penalty of perjury that a candidate meets the qualification requirements of the U.S. Constitution, which is something similar to what the political parties already state regarding their candidates.

Other plans were considered last year in Texas, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Missouri, Minnesota, Maine and Arizona, and Arizona's probably got the closest to law, falling a "pocket veto" short in the state Senate, despite widespread support.

What did I tell you? On Monday I told you that emanuel would wind up on the ballot. It's absolutley amazing that every single government institution in chicago is corrupt. Even the supreme court of the state can be bought and sold.

Rules don't apply in a place like chicago. At least not to the rich and powerful. There are still plenty of rules for the average citizen though, like being denied the right to protect themselves...

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled today that Rahm Emanuel can stay on the ballot for mayor of Chicago.

The decision comes without a moment to spare; early voting for the Feb. 22 city election begins Monday, Jan. 31.

You can read the opinion by clicking here.

A cheer went up at Emanuel's headquarters when the news came out. The candidate was preparing to leave for tonight's debate with the three other leading contenders. But first he stopped at the Clark and Lake "el" stop to greet voters.

He shook hands with a large smile on his face, slapping the backs of commuters and posing for photographs. Some slapped his back in return.

The high court's decision reverses a 2-1 Illinois Appeals Court decision Monday that ruled Emanuel ineligible on the grounds he did not meet the requirement of being a Chicago resident for a year before the election. Emanuel returned to Chicago last fall to run for mayor after serving as White House chief of staff to President Barack Obama.

The Chicago election board and a Cook County Circuit judge had earlier both ruled Emanuel met the residency requirements. The Supreme Court unanimousy said the appellate court was in error in overruling them.

"So there will be no mistake, let us be entirely clear," the Supreme Court wrote in its ruling today. "This court’s decision is based on the following and only on the following: (1) what it means to be a resident for election purposes was clearly established long ago, and Illinois law has been consistent on the matter since at least the 19th Century; (2) the novel standard adopted by the appellate court majority is without any foundation in Illinois law; (3) the Board’s factual findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence; and (4) the Board’s decision was not clearly erroneous."

"I can say the candidate and our camp are very pleased that this issue is finally behind us," said Emanuel attorney Kevin Forde. He pointed to the high court's ruling that the law was long settled. "They make it clear the law has been settled for 150 years."

"Emanuel's residency drama has made this election into a circus instead of a serious debate about the future of Chicago," Chico said in a statement that argued he is the most qualified to lead the city. "With less than 30 days to go until Election Day, there is no time to waste. Game on."

Emanuel has enjoyed a wide lead over three other major candidates in two Tribune polls.

On Tuesday, the state Supreme Court put the appellate ruling on hold, restoring Emanuel temporarily to the ballot, and agreed to take the case. The justices did not want to hear arguments or receive new legal briefings from the attorneys on either side of the ballot dispute. Instead, they used the material the attorneys already filed at the appellate level.

About 300,000 ballots were printed Tuesday without Emanuel’s name on them until the Supreme Court weighed in with its order to keep Emanuel on the ballot at least temporarily. Those ballots were set aside and new ballots printed by the Chicago Board of Election Commissioner had Emanuel’s name on them.

Still, elections officials suggested that voters might want to wait a bit before casting an early ballot, given the uncertainty in the mayor’s race. Early voting runs Jan. 31 to Feb. 17.

It's been a story a day lately about these bean counters condemning obama's debt. Why do I doubt that it will make any difference. Up to this point, no one has been able to tell obama anything. He refuses to see the truth. He only sees what he wants to see and that doesn't include heis destruction of our Country...

The top numbers cruncher for Congress warned Thursday that the federal government increasingly risks sending the country into a "fiscal crisis," projecting that unless cuts are made, within a decade the national debt could reach nearly 100 percent of all annual economic activity.

That's like having $50,000 in debt on a $50,000-a-year salary.

Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf, on the heels of a report pegging the 2011 budget deficit at a record $1.5 trillion, testified before the Senate Budget Committee on the risks of inaction. He said cumulative deficits over the next 10 years could run anywhere from $7 trillion to $12 trillion.

He warned that making budget cuts too deep, too fast could be "disruptive" to the economic recovery at a fragile time. But he said Congress will have to start balancing the budget soon if it wants to head off, or at least minimize, the chance of a national debt-driven fiscal calamity in the future.

"The longer that you wait to make those policy changes ... the greater the negative consequences (of the national debt) will be," he said.

Invoking recent economic crises in countries like Ireland and Greece, Elmendorf said waiting too long to curb spending and reduce the debt can have a host of consequences which all add up -- investors get nervous that the government can't finance its debt; the government loses the ability to respond to emergencies while interest rates eat up more and more of the budget pie; and taxes rise.

As is customary in congressional hearings about the nation's fiscal problems, Elmendorf rattled off a string of staggering numbers in his forecast of future budget shortfalls. He said that if nothing changes in the law, the federal deficit will add up to $7 trillion over the next decade, pushing the debt up to 77 percent of GDP. But he suggested that estimate "understates" the problem, given that lawmakers frequently extend policies, like tax cuts and higher Medicare payments to doctors, that would help balance the budget if they were allowed to expire.

If such short-term policies are extended, Elmendorf said, the deficit would reach nearly $12 trillion over the decade, pushing the debt to almost 100 percent of GDP.

The hearing comes after the Congressional Budget Office released a report that shows the nation's red ink running even deeper than previously thought.

"Spending as a share of our national income is at the highest level in 60 years. Revenue as a share of our national income is at its lowest level in 60 years. No wonder that we are headed for the largest deficit ever," said committee chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D.

The analysis showed the deficit hitting a record $1.5 trillion this year, charting a rise due in part to a lagging economic recovery coupled with the recently passed tax cut package.

The study also showed Social Security in a deficit this year. The entitlement program ran at a deficit in 2010 but had been expected to run in the black for a few more years before reverting back and permanently paying out more than it takes in. The latest estimate now shows Social Security consistently operating at a deficit through about 2037, when its reserves are expected to run out entirely.

President Obama touched on the need for deficit reduction in his State of the Union speech Tuesday. He called for a five-year freeze on non-mandatory domestic spending, a proposal he estimated would save $400 billion over the next decade. He called for action on reforming entitlements like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, without offering specifics.

But the $400 billion in proposed savings adds up to less than one-third of this year's projected deficit, and Republican congressional leaders roundly called on the administration to do more to address the nation's debt and deficit.

At the Budget Committee hearing, there was a bipartisan call for Congress to develop a spending-cut plan this year.

"We can't continue to put this off. We need to reach an agreement this year," Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said.

"The time for debate is over, and we must take action," said Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho.

This is just a guess, but I think if our border was secure we wouldn't be finding these items down there. Of course, janet napolitano and her gang don't have any evidence of terrorist cells operating along the Southern Border, but who says the radical thugs stayed in Arizona? They could be anywhere, planning, waiting.

Illegal aliens from mexico draining our welfare system, over crowding our school system and committing crimes against American citizens aren't the only reason we have to fear an unsecure border. Every year, thousands of thugs and criminals pour across our Southern Border from iraq, iran, yemen, pakistan and a host of other countries that consider us an enemy.

What is it going to take for our elected leaders to do the right thing and protect our Country from this scourge. Are we going to have to suffer another massive attack by these radical islamic thugs? Are the imagined votes these politicians covet more important than the lives of American Citizens?

A book celebrating suicide bombers has been found in the Arizona desert just north of the U.S.- Mexican border, authorities tell Fox News.

The book, "In Memory of Our Martyrs," was spotted Tuesday by a U.S. Border Patrol agent out of the Casa Grande substation who was patrolling a route known for smuggling illegal immigrants and drugs.

Published in Iran, it consists of short biographies of Islamic suicide bombers and other Islamic militants who died carrying out attacks.

According to internal U.S. Customs and Border Protection documents, "The book also includes letters from suicide attackers to their families, as well as some of their last wills and testaments." Each biographical page contains "the terrorist's name, date of death, and how they died."

Agents also say that the book appears to have been exposed to weather in the desert "for at least several days or weeks."

Authorities told Fox News that there were no people in the area at the time the book was found, and no arrests have been made in connection with it.

"At this time, DHS does not have any credible information on terrorist groups operating along the Southwest border," a Department of Homeland Security official said in a statement. "We work closely with our partners in the law enforcement and intelligence communities and as a matter of due diligence and law enforcement best practice, report anything found, no matter how significant or insignificant it may seem."

Statements from U.S. officials, including FBI director Robert Mueller, have raised serious concerns in recent years over "OTMs" -- or illegal immigrants other than Mexicans -- who have crossed the southwest border at alarming rates.

Mueller testified before the House Appropriations Committee in March 2005 that "there are individuals from countries with known Al Qaeda connections who are changing their Islamic surnames to Hispanic-sounding names and obtaining false Hispanic identities, learning to speak Spanish and pretending to be Hispanic."

Just last year, the Department of Homeland Security had in custody thousands of detainees from Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. U.S. Border Patrol statistics indicate that there were 108,025 OTMs detained in 2006, compared to 165,178 in 2005 and 44,614 in 2004.

Authorities would not release a picture of the book to Fox News, or reveal how long they believe it was lying in the desert. Immigration officials have previously discovered items along the U.S.-Mexico border from Middle Eastern origin, including Iranian currency in Zapata, Texas, and a jacket found in Jim Hogg County, Texas, that was covered in patches including an Arabic military badge that illustrates an airplane flying into a tower.

It's the pits to break a tooth while eating. Just ask Rep. Dennis Kucinich.

The Ohio Democratic representative is suing House cafeteria service providers for $150,000 for allegedly selling him a sandwich wrap with a stray olive pit in it.

Kucinich, who ran for president in 2008, said in a Jan. 3 lawsuit filed in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia that the pit caused "serious and permanent" damage to his mouth and wellbeing.

He said he is entitled to recover damages, "including but not limited to past and future dental and medical expenses, compensation for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment and other damage."

An initial scheduling conference is set for April. The four respondents named in the case are all food service providers for Capitol Hill. The offending sandwich was purchased at the Longworth House Office Building.

According to the lawsuit, a copy of which was obtained by courthousenews.com, Kucinich is filing civil charges on two counts of negligence and two counts of breach of implied warranty.

The suit claims the sandwich wrap in question was purchased "on or about April 17, 2008."

"Said sandwich wrap was unwholesome and unfit for human consumption in that it was represented to contain pitted olives, yet unknown to plaintiff contained an unpitted olive or olives which plaintiff did not reasonably expect to be in the food prepared for him, and could not visually detect prior to consumption," the lawsuit reads.

Kucinich, who as a member of Congress receives dental coverage among the health care insurance he is entitled to receive, alleged in the suit that as a result of his consumption of the unwholesome and unfit food, the plaintiff "sustained serious and permanent dental and oral injuries requiring multiple surgical and dental procedures, and has sustained other damages as well, including significant pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment."

Asked about the suit, which cost $120 to file in the D.C. Superior Court, Kucinich attorney Andrew Young told Fox News, "This is a private matter that needs to be tried in the courts and not in the public media."

$1.5 TRILLION DOLLARS! obama's lame plan for freezing spending for five years isn't even a good idea. Do you know why? Because freezing spending at the current level is unsustainable, the current level of spending is what got us in this mess in the first place.

Let me put this in terms that even a dumbass like me can understand. Let's say I want to buy a new $1,000 rifle every month in 2012. I can't afford it, so I charge in on my credit card. At the end of the year I have accumulated debt of $12,000 dollars. So my Bride kicks me in the nuts and tells me we can't afford to do that again. According to obama, I can tell her, "ok, I'm going to freeze spending at the 2012 level." and I buy another twelve $1,000 rifles in 2013, winding up with $24,000 in debt plus the interest on the original $12,000. It's pretty stupid isn't it.

Spending has to be CUT not frozen. There is no way to balance a budget and stop a deficit when you spend more money than you take in. That's like high school math, maybe even junior high. It doesn't really take a fucking rocket surgeon to figure that out. Yet some of the highest paid money guys in the english speaking world will argue about it. Holy shit, it just boggles the mind.

At some point, some one in washington is going to have to grow a set of balls and make some tough decisions about our economy and the way we spend money. You can bet your ass that person won't be a democrat...

A continuing weak economy and last month's bipartisan tax cut legislation will drive the government's deficit to a record $1.5 trillion this year, a new government estimate predicts.

The eye-popping numbers mean the government will continue to borrow 40 cents for every dollar it spends.

The new Congressional Budget Office estimates will add fuel to a raging debate over cutting spending and looming legislation that's required to allow the government to borrow more money as the national debt nears the $14.3 trillion cap set by law. Republicans controlling the House say there's no way they'll raise the limit without significant cuts in spending, starting with a government funding bill that will advance next month.

The CBO analysis predicts the economy will grow by 3.1 percent this year, but that joblessness will remain above 9 percent this year. Dauntingly for President Obama, the nonpartisan agency estimates a nationwide unemployment rate of 8.2 percent on Election Day in 2012.

The latest figures are up from previous estimates because of bipartisan legislation passed in December that extended Bush-era tax cuts, unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless and provided a 2 percent payroll tax cut this year.

That measure added almost $400 billion to this year's deficit, CBO says.

The deficit is on track to beat the record of $1.4 trillion set in 2009. That figure reflected huge outlays from the Wall Street bailout. The nonpartisan budget agency predicts the deficit will drop to $1.1 trillion next year.

"The fiscal challenge confronting us is enormous. To solve this problem, it will require real compromise and a great deal of political will," said Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D. "We need to have both sides, Democrats and Republicans, willing to move off their fixed positions and find common ground."

The chilling figures come the morning after Obama called for a five-year freeze on domestic agency budgets passed by Congress each year. But those nondefense programs make up just 18 percent of the $3.7 trillion budget, which means any upcoming deficit reduction package -- at least one that begins to significantly slow the gush of red ink -- will require politically dangerous curbs to popular benefit programs, which include Social Security, Medicare, the Medicaid health care program for the poor and disabled, and food stamps.

"Somebody is going to have to bite the bullet and get this process going," said Maya MacGuineas of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan group that advocates fiscal responsibility. "And that somebody has to be the president."

Obama has pointedly steered clear of the recommendations of his deficit commissions, which in December called for politically difficult moves such as increasing the Social Security retirement age and reducing future increases in benefits. It also proposed a 15 cents a gallon increase in the gas tax and eliminating or scaling back tax breaks -- including the child tax credit, mortgage interest deduction and deduction claimed by employers who provide health insurance -- in exchange for rate cuts on corporate and income taxes.

"I find the president moving in the same directions as (the deficit commission), certainly the same goals," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who served on the panel and voted for its controversial findings. "Stay tuned."

CBO predicts that the deficit will fall to $551 billion by 2015, down to a sustainable 3 percent of the size of the economy.

But under its rules, the CBO assumes that recently extended cuts in taxes on income, investment and people inheriting large estates will expire in two years. If those tax cuts, and numerous others, are extended, the deficit for that year would be almost three times as large.

Tax revenues, which dropped significantly in 2009 because of the recession, have stabilized. But revenue growth will continue to be constrained because of the slow pace of economic growth and the extension of Bush era tax cuts passed by Congress in December. The CBO projects revenues to be 6 percent higher in 2011 than they were two years ago, which will not keep pace with the growth in spending.

As a share of the economy, tax revenues in 2011 are projected to reach their lowest levels since 1950. The CBO projects that tax revenues will be 14.8 percent of GDP in 2011, which would be 0.1 percentage point lower than in 2009.

"The United States faces daunting economic and budgetary challenges. The economy has struggled to recover from the recent recession, which was triggered by a large decline in house prices and a financial crisis -- events unlike anything this country has seen since the Great Depression," the CBO report says.

Separately, almost a dozen Republican senators endorsed a proposal by Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, to amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget. The version is stricter than a bipartisan balanced budget amendment that fell one vote short in the Senate in 1997. It requires a two-thirds vote in Congress to raise taxes, among other provisions backed by tea party activists. No Democrats have signed on to the measure.

Every thing we were told about obamacare is a lie. It wasn't miscalculation or error, it was a lie.

obamacare isn't going to provide us with higher quality health care. Just the opposite, it is forcing good doctors to leave their practices and causing would be new doctors to choose another line of work.

obamacare isn't going to lower the cost of health care. Again, just the opposite, as the government reduces medicare payments, hospitals and doctors will be forced to charge paying customers more money to cover the losses of treating medicare patients, if they even treat them at all. Doctors refusing to treat medicare patients because they are getting screwed by the government will lead to rationing of services.

This is all a plan. It is designed to funnel us all onto a big government welfare health care plan. The single payer system was shot down in the original obamacare debate, so like everything else with this gang of thugs, they will backdoor it in, and all of us will take it in the backdoor. It is a powerplay.

It's not going to work. It hasn't been effective anywhere it has been tried. The same government that wants to control our health care is the same group that currently controls medicare, medicade and the post office. I don't think they have any idea what they are doing with those three, so I damn sure don't trust them with the health of my children.

I fear for the elderly of our Country. They deserve better than this...

WASHINGTON -- Two of the central promises of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law are unlikely to be fulfilled, Medicare's independent economic expert told Congress on Wednesday.

The landmark legislation probably won't hold costs down, and it won't let everybody keep their current health insurance if they like it, Chief Actuary Richard Foster told the House Budget Committee. His office is responsible for independent long-range cost estimates.

Foster's assessment came a day after Obama in his State of the Union message told lawmakers that he's open to improvements in the law, but unwilling to rehash the health care debate of the past two years. Republicans want to repeal the landmark legislation that provides coverage to more than 30 million people now uninsured, but lack the votes.

Foster was asked by Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., for a simple true or false response on two of the main assertions made by supporters of the law: that it will bring down unsustainable medical costs and will let people keep their current health insurance if they like it.

On the costs issue, "I would say false, more so than true," Foster responded.

As for people getting to keep their coverage, "not true in all cases."

Foster was a thorn in the side to the administration throughout the health care debate, doubting that Medicare cuts would prove to be politically sustainable and raising other questions. An equal opportunity skeptic, he was also a bane to the George W. Bush administration during the debate that led to creation of the Medicare prescription drug benefit in 2003. Obama White House officials dispute his analysis and predict that he will be proven wrong about the health care law. Republicans hang on his every word.

The comments Wednesday were unusually direct because Foster generally delivers his analysis in complicated technical memos.

Foster says analysis by his office shows that the health care law will raise the nation's health care tab modestly because newly insured people will be getting medical services they would have otherwise gone without.

Costs could also increase if Medicare cuts to hospitals, nursing homes and home health agencies turn out to be politically unsustainable over the years. The actuary's office has projected those cuts would eventually force about 15 percent of providers into the red. The health care law funnels savings from the Medicare cuts to provide coverage to uninsured workers and their families.

As for people getting to keep their health insurance plan, Foster's office is projecting that more than 7 million Medicare recipients in private Medicare Advantage plans will eventually have to find other coverage, cutting enrollment in the plans by about half.

The health care law gradually cuts generous government payments to the plans, so insurers are expected to raise premiums or even drop out. And the main reason seniors have flocked to the private plans is that they offer lower out-of-pocket costs.

Medicare recipients who lose private coverage would still be guaranteed coverage in the traditional program, but they would likely have to take out a supplementary insurance plan for gaps in their coverage.

A plan in Arizona to require presidential candidates to prove their eligibility to occupy the Oval Office is approaching critical mass, even though it has just been introduced.

The proposal from state Rep. Judy Burges, who carried a similar plan that fell short last year only because of political maneuvering, was introduced yesterday with 16 members of the state Senate as co-sponsors.

It needs only 16 votes in the Senate to pass.

In the House, there are 25 co-sponsors, with the need for only 31 votes for passage, and Burges told WND that there were several chamber members who confirmed they support the plan and will vote for it, but simply didn't wish to be listed as co-sponsors.

The proposal, which also is being taken up in a number of other states, is highly specific and directly addresses the questions that have been raised by Barack Obama's occupancy of the White House. It says:

Within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate's citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate's age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.

The critical phrases are "natural born citizen" and the requirements of "article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States," which imposes on the president a requirement not demanded of other state and federal officeholders.

At the time the Constitution was written, many analysts agree, a "natural born citizen" was considered to be a citizen born of two citizen parents. If that indeed is correct, Obama never would have been qualified to be president, as he himself has confirmed his father was a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, making Obama a dual citizen with Kenyan and American parentage at his birth.

Other definitions have called for a "natural born citizen" to be born of citizen parents inside the nation.

There have been dozens of lawsuits and challenges over the fact that Obama's "natural born citizen" status never has been documented. The "Certification of Live Birth" his campaign posted online is a document that Hawaii has made available to those not born in the state.

The controversy stems from the Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

The challenges to Obama's eligibility allege he does not qualify because he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as he claims, or that he fails to qualify because he was a dual citizen, through his father, of the U.S. and the United Kingdom's Kenyan terroritory when he was born and the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens from eligibility.

There are several cases still pending before the courts over Obama's eligibility. Those cases, however, almost all have been facing hurdles created by the courts' interpretation of "standing," meaning someone who is being or could be harmed by the situation. The courts have decided almost unanimously that an individual taxpayer faces no damages different from other taxpayers, therefore doesn't have standing. Judges even have ruled that other presidential candidates are in that position.

The result is that none of the court cases to date has reached the level of discovery, through which Obama's birth documentation could be brought into court.

Obama even continued to withhold the information during a court-martial of a military officer, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who challenged his deployment orders on the grounds Obama may not be a legitimate president. Lakin was convicted and sent to prison.

Burges told WND she's asked the proposal to be assigned to the Government Committee.

"I think every American should consider it of prime importance to ensure that all candidates for the highest elected position in our nation meet all constitutional requirements," she told WND. "We do not accept the federal government's unconstitutional treatment of states as one of their extended branches."

The Arizona bill also requires attachments, "which shall be sworn to under penalty of perjury," including "an original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician and signatures of the witnesses in attendance."

It also requires testimony that the candidate "has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate's allegiance is solely to the United States of America."

"If both the candidate and the national political party committee for that candidate fail to submit and swear to the documents prescribed in this section, the secretary of state shall not place that presidential candidate's name on the ballot in this state," the state plan explains.

The governor's office is occupied by Republican Jan Brewer, who has had no difficulty in bringing direct challenges to Washington, such as a year ago when lawmakers adopted provisions that allowed state law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration law. The state's move prompted an immediate court challenge by Washington.

WND also has reported that similar efforts are under way in Montana, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Texas.

The coach had put together the perfect team for the Detroit Lions. The only thing that was missing was a good quarterback. He had scouted all the colleges and even the Canadian and European Leagues, but he couldn't find a ringer who could ensure a Super Bowl win.

Then one night while watching CNN he saw a war-zone scene in Afghanistan. In one corner of the background, he spotted a young Afghan Muslim soldier with a truly incredible arm. He threw a hand-grenade straight into a 15th story window 100 yards away.

KABOOM!

He threw another hand-grenade 75 yards away, right into a chimney.

KA-BLOOEY!

Then he threw another at a passing car going 90 mph.

BULLS-EYE!

"I've got to get this guy!" coach said to himself. "He has the perfect arm!"

So, he brings him to the States and teaches him the great game of football. And the Lions go on to win the Super Bowl.

The young Afghan is hailed as the great hero of football, and when the coach asks him what he wants, all the young man wants is to call his mother.

"Mom," he says into the phone, "I just won the Super Bowl!"

"I don't want to talk to you," the old Muslim woman says. "You are not my son!"

"I don't think you understand, Mother," the young man pleads. "I've won the greatest sporting event in the world. I'm here among thousands of my adoring fans."

"No! Let me tell you!" his mother retorts. "At this very moment, there are gunshots all around us. The neighborhood is a pile of rubble. Your two brothers were beaten within an inch of their lives last week, and I have to keep your sister in the house so she doesn't get raped!" The old lady pauses, and then tearfully says,

Remember yesterday I told you that emanuel would wind up back on the ballot? Even though he is, by rule, ineligible to participate in the chicago mayoral election, the Illinois supreme court decided to let his name still be printed on the ballots.

They haven't decided yet to allow him to actually run for the office. I read different opinions today. Some said the court will act quickly and allow him to run, others said there was no way the court could act that fast. I tend to think he will be allowed to run. obama has probably already been on the phone with each member of the court and convinced them to allow emanuel to break the rules and enter the race.

Washington (Jan 25) Tonight, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) will deliver the Republican address following the President’s State of the Union message from the House Budget Committee hearing room, where the Democrats’ spending spree will end and the Republicans’ push for a fiscally responsible budget that cuts spending will begin. Following are excerpts from Chairman Ryan’s address:

REP. GABRIELLE GIFFORDS: “President Obama just addressed a Congressional chamber filled with many new faces. One face we did not see tonight was that of our friend and colleague, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona. We all miss Gabby and her cheerful spirit; and we are praying for her return to the House Chamber.”

**********

SPENDING: “In one of our first acts in the new majority, House Republicans voted to cut Congress’s own budget. And just today, the House voted to restore the spending discipline that Washington sorely needs. The reason is simple. A few years ago, reducing spending was important. Today, it’s imperative. Here’s why. We face a crushing burden of debt. The debt will soon eclipse our entire economy, and grow to catastrophic levels in the years ahead. On this current path, when my three children – who are now 6, 7, and 8 years old – are raising their own children, the federal government will double in size, and so will the taxes they pay. No economy can sustain such high levels of debt and taxation. The next generation will inherit a stagnant economy and a diminished country. Frankly, it’s one of my greatest concerns as a parent – and I know many of you feel the same way.”

**********

BUDGET: “Americans are skeptical of both political parties, and that skepticism is justified – especially when it comes to spending. So hold all of us accountable. In this very room, the House will produce, debate, and advance a budget. Last year – in an unprecedented failure– Congress chose not to pass, or even propose a budget. The spending spree continued unchecked. We owe you a better choice and a different vision. Our forthcoming budget is our obligation to you – to show you how we intend to do things differently, how we will cut spending to get the debt down, help create jobs and prosperity, and reform government programs.”

**********

FISCAL CHALLENGE AHEAD: “Our nation is approaching a tipping point. We are at a moment, where if government’s growth is left unchecked and unchallenged, America’s best century will be considered our past century. This is a future in which we will transform our social safety net into a hammock, which lulls able-bodied people into lives of complacency and dependency. Depending on bureaucracy to foster innovation, competitiveness, and wise consumer choices has never worked – and it won’t work now. We need to chart a new course.”

**********

“STIMULUS”: “The facts are clear: Since taking office, President Obama has signed into law spending increases of nearly 25% for domestic government agencies – an 84% increase when you include the failed stimulus. All of this new government spending was sold as ‘investment.’ Yet after two years, the unemployment rate remains above 9% and government has added over $3 trillion to our debt.”

**********

HEALTH CARE: “What we already know about the President’s health care law is this: Costs are going up, premiums are rising, and millions of people will lose the coverage they currently have. Job creation is being stifled by all of its taxes, penalties, mandates and fees. Businesses and unions from around the country are asking the Obama Administration for waivers from the mandates. Washington should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. The President mentioned the need for regulatory reform to ease the burden on American businesses. We agree – and we think his health care law would be a great place to start. Last week, House Republicans voted for a full repeal of this law, as we pledged to do, and we will work to replace it with fiscally responsible, patient-centered reforms that actually reduce costs and expand coverage.”

**********

DEBT LIMIT: “Whether sold as ‘stimulus’ or repackaged as ‘investment,’ their actions show they want a federal government that controls too much; taxes too much; and spends too much in order to do too much. And during the last two years, that is exactly what we have gotten – along with record deficits and debt – to the point where the President is now urging Congress to increase the debt limit. We believe the days of business as usual must come to an end. We hold to a couple of simple convictions: Endless borrowing is not a strategy; spending cuts have to come first.”

**********

ROLE OF GOVERNMENT: “We believe government’s role is both vital and limited – to defend the nation from attack and provide for the common defense … to secure our borders… to protect innocent life… to uphold our laws and Constitutional rights … to ensure domestic tranquility and equal opportunity … and to help provide a safety net for those who cannot provide for themselves. We believe that the government has an important role to create the conditions that promote entrepreneurship, upward mobility, and individual responsibility. We believe, as our founders did, that ‘the pursuit of happiness’ depends upon individual liberty; and individual liberty requires limited government. Limited government also means effective government. When government takes on too many tasks, it usually doesn’t do any of them very well. It’s no coincidence that trust in government is at an all-time low now that the size of government is at an all-time high.”

**********

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: “We need to reclaim our American system of limited government, low taxes, reasonable regulations, and sound money, which has blessed us with unprecedented prosperity. And it has done more to help the poor than any other economic system ever designed. That’s the real secret to job creation – not borrowing and spending more money in Washington. Limited government and free enterprise have helped make America the greatest nation on earth.”

I'm sorry, but if anyone is fooled by obama's fake to the center, you are an idiot. This guy is a politician, a true politician. He will do or say ANYTHING to try to get re-elected, even acting like he something that he is not. He is not a centrist, he never will be, he is a hard core liberal. He want to redistribute our money, not his money though, just ours. He is going to bury his theft of tax dollars in all kinds of pretty words, but at the end of the day, he wants to spend more money, money that we don't have. More than likely, any money that he does want to spend will be funneled to his friends and supporters, just liek large portions of the stimulus money. Don't be fooled...

If BHO had the slightest bit of integrity, his State of the Union address tonight would be no longer than 30 seconds, and it would go something like this:

“My fellow Americans, my presidency has sucked. Big time. My stint as your leader has been worse than the Matrix Revolution, and you know how awful that Keanu Reeves movie was. To the American public, I’m sorry. The job of being President has been above my experience. I had no idea what I was supposed to be doing, and I still don’t. I’ve screwed over so many generations of Americans with the debt I’ve been racking up. So for the good of the country and because I’m tired of Michelle forcing me to eat organic arugula from the White House garden, tonight I am resigning. Take care America, and please don’t ever say that Jimmy Carter was a better President than I was, because that would really sting.”

I know – there’s a better chance that Keith Olbermann guest hosts the “The O’Reilly Factor” than there is of BHO’s resigning. But we can dream, can’t we?

In reality, Obama will take the opportunity of his second State of the Union to do what he’s really good at: Propose even more spending. And he’s going to do this under the rubric of “investments.”

How do I know this? His advisors have been “leaking” the themes of this evening’s speech, which the New York Times describes as a “call for ‘investments’ of tax dollars in specific areas like education, infrastructure and technology” as a way to boost economic growth.

But don’t be fooled. These aren’t investments. These are confiscations of private-sector capital that Obama has neither earned nor knows how to earn, for that matter.

The left uses the word “investment” each time they’re after your wallet. In fact, Obama sold the failed “stimulus” plan as a package of… investments!

Seriously.

Before he signed the inaptly named “The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,” Obama called it “an investment that will create jobs building 21st-Century classrooms and libraries and labs for millions of children across America.”

He also dubbed the spending measure as “an investment that takes the important first step towards a national transmission superhighway,” while also claiming that “nearly 400,000 men and women will go to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges” via the stimulus’s “investment.”

In total, Obama blurted out the word “investment” 20 times at the signing of the stimulus.

And now he wants more.

While Obama is attempting to use “the language of the center-right” to come across as pro-business, from what we’ll hear tonight, it’s clear that he is still committed to the shopworn idea of government spending creating wealth.

It doesn’t and never has. Societies prosper through free-markets and limited government.

Look, if government spending were a magic bullet, the Soviet Union would have been an economic juggernaut rather than a basket case where millions of people were ensnarled in unspeakable destitution. Heck, Cuba, Venezuela, and every other socialist tyranny around the world would be economic nirvanas today.

Even the Europeans are saying that federal spending inhibits economic growth. Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute highlights a recent study from the European Central Bank which concludes that “expenditure-based fiscal consolidation” appears to “foster growth,” especially “in times of severe fiscal imbalances.”

In other words, “reducing spending promotes faster economic growth” and is the track Obama should’ve taken to lift our sagging economy.

The truth is, we can’t handle any more of Obama’s “investments.” This guy is spending the country into oblivion.

If the spending doesn’t stop now when we’re running deficits of 1.3 trillion and owe $14 trillion in debt, when will it?

As economist Kevin Hassett rightly observes, “A welfare state that can’t shrink in a recession will possibly never shrink, which means that today’s high taxes provide an ominous foreshadow of even higher rates to come.”